• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 Generals Wary About Repealing Gay Policy

MrVicchio said:
With al due respect to the gay community, it's really not worth the disruption this WILL cause on morale and order in the military. Do you really think it's worth going through the assimilation process just to give a very small precentage of the armed forces the "right to openly be gay and serve"? More so during a war?

Uhm hello.... not a bright move for so little a return.
Click to expand...

Since you believe this WILL cause a disruption; can you (or the generals in the OP for that matter) point to an instance where one of our many, many allies who have already lifted this ban have seen a massive disruption?

I can, however, point to how this policy has negatively impacted our current wars by dismissing multiple Arabic translators at a time when we have fewer than half of the number needed to be effective in fighting in Arabic-speaking lands.

I'm merely asking you and others to back your assertion with facts and evidence.

We're TOLD that there will be a "disruption"; however, the evidence I find shows that there is already a disruption due to the current policy and I've not found any evidence of major disruption in any of the many militaries of our allies who have already overturned bans on Gay and Lesbian service members.
 
MrVicchio said:
With al due respect to the gay community, it's really not worth the disruption this WILL cause on morale and order in the military. Do you really think it's worth going through the assimilation process just to give a very small precentage of the armed forces the "right to openly be gay and serve"? More so during a war?

Uhm hello.... not a bright move for so little a return.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but I don't go around my work (or non-work life) announcing to everyone, "I'm a heterosexual."

How do you think this will disrupt morale? Are heteros in the military going to be uncomfortable, devastated, angry or what? These are human beings, for goodness sake!
 
PeteEU said:
No, because this has nothing to do with military matters and that is my point. Gays have been serving in the military long before Jesus supposedly walked this earth, and it has had zero impact on the military. Your sexual orientation is not the concern of the military, nor is your religion, nor is your ethnicity.

Are you seriously saying that if a General came and said it would be best to ban Black people from the military because they might cause problems in the military? You do know that was once used as an excuse by the very same top brass to prevent black men in serving? How is this ANY different?

Just because you like the same sex, how on earth should that some how make you any less of a person to serve in the military? Does being a woman, black, Jew or Muslim make you less of a person and a problem for serving in the military?



I know, and guess what.. deal with it. Now if the girl cant cut the physical aspects, then fine, but that goes for any man as well. We have to get past this set in stone religious based dogma on what a man and a woman can and can not do. Women can do ANYTHING a man can do if they set their minds to it.



So we should plan for peoples sexist and bigatory? :rofl talk about appeasing a minority.... guess we should plan for accepting child rapists, murders and terrorists .. after they just have a different opinion on what the law is..



There is one hell of a difference being tolerant over political differences and being tolerant of people who are for open discrimination against others based on sexual orientation, religion or ethnicity. We dont accept racism in society, nor do we accept sexism and nor do we accept discrimination based on religion.. well for the most part. Why the hell should the military be any different than the society it serves?
Click to expand...
You don't think this is a military matter (which it most certainly is) because you don't care about the US military. It isn't your military, but it is ours and we (Americans) want the best military possible no matter what it takes. If women, gays and short people are not conducive to the best military, and need to be excluded....so be it. If thousands of years of military experience says men shouldn't be kissing on the battlefield, then that's the way it is. That doesn't mean I hate gays, women or short people. I'm an engineer, and the solution is not arrived at through emotional means.
 
American said:
You don't think this is a military matter (which it most certainly is) because you don't care about the US military. It isn't your military, but it is ours and we (Americans) want the best military possible no matter what it takes. If women, gays and short people are not conducive to the best military, and need to be excluded....so be it. If thousands of years of military experience says men shouldn't be kissing on the battlefield, then that's the way it is. That doesn't mean I hate gays, women or short people. I'm an engineer, and the solution is not arrived at through emotional means.
Click to expand...

give examples of how it will be bad for the US army
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is entirely inaccurate. All you are posting is propaganda and logical fallacies.



More logical fallacies. The sky is NOT falling.



More nonsense. Until you can show legitimate claims that liberals are suggesting that child molesters are such because of genetics, you are posting nothing but ridiculous drivel.

And as far as you link goes, the doctor in question is a psychoanalyst. Psychoanalysis's assessment of homosexuality has been thoroughly debunked as they depend on NO empirical research to make their assessment. Also, how sexual orientation is formed is unknown, but researchers agree that it is dependent on several factors including genetics, biology, and social influences. Now, remember that I said sexual orienation. That means the formation of heterosexuality is ALSO dependent on these factors.

I'm glad I could educate you on this issue.
Click to expand...

Talk about propaganda.

Simply Google gay gene hoax and learn something.
 
Last edited:
American said:
If thousands of years of military experience says men shouldn't be kissing on the battlefield, then that's the way it is. That doesn't mean I hate gays, women or short people. I'm an engineer, and the solution is not arrived at through emotional means.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't KNOW gays if you think they'd start making out in the middle of the battlefield. That's one of the most uninformed stereotypical things I've ever read in my life and only proves that you're making assertions based on emotion and not logic.
 
bub said:
give examples of how it will be bad for the US army
Click to expand...
That's not for me to decide. That's up to the military.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
You clearly don't KNOW gays if you think they'd start making out in the middle of the battlefield. That's one of the most uninformed stereotypical things I've ever read in my life and only proves that you're making assertions based on emotion and not logic.
Click to expand...
Don't get your panties in a wad, I was making a point. If two women kissing on the battlefield makes you feel better that's fine. :lol:
 
American said:
That's not for me to decide. That's up to the military.
Click to expand...

I just ask you to back up your claims. Why would it be bad? Provide examples!
 
American said:
Don't get your panties in a wad, I was making a point. If two women kissing on the battlefield makes you feel better that's fine. :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm not pissed; but you're proving the point that there is no factual or evidentiary case to be made for keeping the ban.

There's only conjecture, religion, and "oh, it's icky to think of".

There's no evidence of major disruption in any other military. We're just told "it will be problematic".

How? What is your evidence that problems will occur. Why and how will morale be worsened?

All we get are "dudes kissing on the field"; "they'll look at people in the shower". All we get is stuff based on backwards stereotypes.

I have - in this thread - posted at least one case where the military is HARMING its self by discharging gay Arabic translators when there is already a great shortage in that position. I've also asked for any historic evidence of major disruption in any other military who has already overturned bans on gay and lesbian service members. So far, there's been none provided. Not by you; and (more importantly) not by the "concerned generals".
 
bub said:
I just ask you to back up your claims. Why would it be bad? Provide examples!
Click to expand...
The only claim I made is that it is a military matter.
 
American said:
The only claim I made is that it is a military matter.
Click to expand...

You also said that these matters should be dealt with factually and not with emotion.

I'm asking for logic and facts from you (or the military) in dealing with this. No one has provided for it.

And you can say, "leave it up to them" all you'd like - but that's not really what a political debate forum is about.

We could also simply say, "leave it up to Congress" - or "leave it up to the president" - but that would make for a really boring political forum, wouldn't it?

The whole point is debating sides, asserting points, and backing it up with evidence.

So, "leave it to the military" isn't really a "claim" at all. It's a cop out.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
You clearly don't KNOW gays if you think they'd start making out in the middle of the battlefield. That's one of the most uninformed stereotypical things I've ever read in my life and only proves that you're making assertions based on emotion and not logic.
Click to expand...

American, I have to agree with the above statement.

Do you think that a gay person serving in the military would walk around telling people, "I'm gay"? People at my work are allowed to be gay. I know some of my co-workers are gay. I am sure there are other co-workers who I have no idea are gay. This has no impact on my ability to do my job.
 
aps said:
American, I have to agree with the above statement.

Do you think that a gay person serving in the military would walk around telling people, "I'm gay"? People at my work are allowed to be gay. I know some of my co-workers are gay. I am sure there are other co-workers who I have no idea are gay. This has no impact on my ability to do my job.
Click to expand...
We are talking about being OPENLY gay. I don't know what that will cause, but it's up to the military to determine what's best. That's all I'm saying. Personally I don't care, except for the extra cost for making the change.
 
I'll make it simple for you people. Most of your soliders, marines... these are manly men, on their time off, they chase ***** and do the hoo-rah man thing. You think they are gonna take well being told what to do by someone they don't believe is a real man?

Sure, that's not a very "nice" way to think about it, but there it is.

Most of you "don't get it" because you either have never served OR you believe that the military isn't all that different from civilian life.

IT IS different. Would the service get over this... eventually I'm sure it would happen, just liek with black intigration. But it's that time period that is in question, is the benefit worth it? I say no, no it is not.

But then, I think the job of the military is to break things and kill people, not be a social relection of society.
 
I think we should just look to our allies who have repealed any kind of ban on gays in the military. For instance the UK who lifted their ban ovr a decade ago. After all the hub bub with officers threatening to resign and the same type of BS thats been recycled here: nothing happened. People went back to work and it wasnt a big deal.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
I'm not pissed; but you're proving the point that there is no factual or evidentiary case to be made for keeping the ban.

There's only conjecture, religion, and "oh, it's icky to think of".

There's no evidence of major disruption in any other military. We're just told "it will be problematic".

How? What is your evidence that problems will occur. Why and how will morale be worsened?

All we get are "dudes kissing on the field"; "they'll look at people in the shower". All we get is stuff based on backwards stereotypes.

I have - in this thread - posted at least one case where the military is HARMING its self by discharging gay Arabic translators when there is already a great shortage in that position. I've also asked for any historic evidence of major disruption in any other military who has already overturned bans on gay and lesbian service members. So far, there's been none provided. Not by you; and (more importantly) not by the "concerned generals".
Click to expand...
If the military determines that it can make it work without excessive cost and disruption, fine.
 
Ethereal said:
Hopefully this will encourage a more robust analysis of the proposed policy change.
Click to expand...

What danarhea didn't post this article? Oh thats right its two high ranking officers not supporting what he wants.
 
American said:
We are talking about being OPENLY gay. I don't know what that will cause, but it's up to the military to determine what's best. That's all I'm saying. Personally I don't care, except for the extra cost for making the change.
Click to expand...

But that's my point, American. Being OPENLY gay doesn't mean gay poeple make out in public, scream, "I'm GAY!" to the world. It means that they won't be discharged from service if they are gay.
 
MrVicchio said:
I'll make it simple for you people. Most of your soliders, marines... these are manly men, on their time off, they chase ***** and do the hoo-rah man thing. You think they are gonna take well being told what to do by someone they don't believe is a real man?

Sure, that's not a very "nice" way to think about it, but there it is.

Most of you "don't get it" because you either have never served OR you believe that the military isn't all that different from civilian life.

IT IS different. Would the service get over this... eventually I'm sure it would happen, just liek with black intigration. But it's that time period that is in question, is the benefit worth it? I say no, no it is not.

But then, I think the job of the military is to break things and kill people, not be a social relection of society.
Click to expand...

How does someone's sexual orientation impact their ability to serve our country? Can you please explain this to me?
 
aps said:
But that's my point, American. Being OPENLY gay doesn't mean gay poeple make out in public, scream, "I'm GAY!" to the world. It means that they won't be discharged from service if they are gay.
Click to expand...

If they were not screaming to the world they were gay then how did the military find out? The whole point of DADT is no one says anything.
 
Last edited:
FilmFestGuy said:
Fair enough, then. We agree.
Click to expand...
I agree that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things, and that if that performance is not hindered by the subject of this thread, then fine.
 
American said:
We are talking about being OPENLY gay. I don't know what that will cause, but it's up to the military to determine what's best. That's all I'm saying. Personally I don't care, except for the extra cost for making the change.
Click to expand...

What extra cost??
 
jamesrage said:
If they were not screaming to the world they were gay then how did the military find out? The whole point of DADT is no one says anything.
Click to expand...

So your belief is that if they allow gay people in the military, gay people will make out in public and scream, "I'm GAY!" to the world? :shock:

james, I don't know about you, but it's very rare that I have a conversation with co-workers about whether I'm heterosexual, bisexual, or gay. It doesn't come up....at all! Does that mean we have a DADT where I work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom